B08_Past_Performance_Questionaires.docx
DOCX document 31 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Supply/deliver Rainbow Bridge repair materials.
- Solicitation number
- 140P8326Q0003
About this file
This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire for a National Park Service contract to reconstruct the Rainbow Bridge Trail Bridge at Stehekin in North Cascades National Park. The solicitation (140P8326Q0003) seeks American-manufactured ASTM A588A metal parts, with delivery estimated for April 30, 2026, to be delivered to Chelan, WA. The procurement process emphasizes past performance as a critical source selection factor, requiring offerors to be registered in SAM.gov with demonstrated experience as prime contractors delivering similar products.
The questionnaire provides a detailed evaluation framework with performance ratings across eight key elements, including technical performance, timeliness, quality, customer satisfaction, and cost control. Contractors will be rated on a scale of Outstanding, Satisfactory, or Unsatisfactory, with the final assessment including a recommendation on whether the agency would do business with the contractor again. Offerors are responsible for compiling and submitting completed past performance questionnaires with their proposal, though the government may independently verify the provided information.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Sol_140P8326Q0003_Amd_0001.pdf | ||
| Rainbow_Bridge_Detail_CSH_0001.pdf | ||
| Sol_140P8326Q0003.pdf | ||
| B08_Forms_to_Return_with_QUOTE.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
SOLICITATION NUMBER: 140P8326Q0003
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
TITLE: Reconstruct Rainbow Bridge Supplies Past Performance Questionnaire
The U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service (NPS) has a requirement for American Society for Testing and Materials (ATSM) A588A American manufactured metal parts for a bridge repair at Staheken, part of North Cascades National Park Complex (NOCA). As part of the procurement process, past performance is a source selection factor.
Two forms are provided to complete the evaluation: 1) Performance Rating Form; and 2) Supplemental Comment Form. The offeror is responsible for compiling and submitting completed past performance questionnaires in its proposal, though the Government may contact references to verify the veracity of provided information. References shall not send completed past performance questionnaires to the Government.
The following standards shall be used in arriving at the rating.
Outstanding Contractor’s performance as a prime contractor was technically acceptable, providing similar supplies.
Satisfactory Contractor met customer expectations as a prime contractor and demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the requirements.
Unsatisfactory Contractor’s performance as a prime contractor was either marginal or did not meet customer expectations or contract requirements.
Other If the element is not applicable, indicate with “N/A.” If no data has been obtained or additional comments are provided, please note in this column.
Performance Rating Form
NAME OF COMPANY EVALUATED
ADDRESS OF COMPANY EVALUATED
CONTRACT NUMBER
CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
CONTRACT VALUE
CONTRACT TYPE
CONTRACTING OFFICER NAME,
ADDRESS, FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND EMAIL ADDRESS
TYPE OF SERVICES PERFORMED (ACTIVITY)
| NAME OF EVALUATOR, COMPANY/AGENCY, ADDRESS, FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS |
| DATE EVALUATION PROVIDED |
| Performance Element |
| Outstanding |
| Satisfactory |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Other |
Technical Performance (Quality of Product or Service)
1. QUALITY OF TECHNICAL APPROACH
(For example: Were the services comprehensive, complete, and feasible? (Met the needs, performed successfully, and accommodated changing requirements.)
2. UNDERSTANDING OF REQUIREMENTS
(For example: Did the contractor show an understanding of the scope of the requirements and an appreciation of the complexity of the requirements? And did the contractor effectively identify flaws, inconsistencies and other inaccuracies in your technical direction?)
Timeliness of Performance
3. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES
(For example: Was the contractor able to obtain in a timely manner the amount and type of personnel resources required to support the project, effectively train personnel to perform the work required for the project, and maintain the required workforce throughout the term of the contract?)
4. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE
(For example: Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic schedules, monitoring performance, completing work on time, and implementing corrections/changes in a timely manner?)
Quality / Customer Satisfaction
5. QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE/CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
(For example: Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction?)
6. BUSINESS BEHAVIOR
(For example: Was the contractor reasonable and cooperative at the corporate and program levels in response to changes in technical direction, correcting errors, poor performance, criticism/rejection of contract deliverables and other quality issues?)
7. COMMUNICATION
(For example: Did the contractor work and communicate well with contracting officers, contracting officer’s technical representatives, end users, other contractors, subcontractors, and in-house staff?)
Cost Control
8. COST CONTROL
(For example: Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic costs, monitoring performance, operating at or below budget, and implementing corrections/changes in a cost effective manner?)
| FOR #9, PLEASE ANSWER “Yes” or “No”, as appropriate |
| YES |
| NO |
9. Given the choice, would you do business with this contractor again?
Additional Comment Form
Please provide any additional comments regarding your performance element ratings in the space below. Please add additional pages as necessary.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .